Timothy Kim Annotation #3 10/14/2011 STS Film Series: Split Estate Word Count: 1671
Split Estate was directed by Debra Anderson and released in 2009.
What is the central argument or narrative of the film?
Through an intimate conversation with people in the path of a new drilling boom in the Rocky Mountain West, the film argues that these powerless people, who are not supported by government agency and regulation, are suffering physically and mentally from the oil and gas industry. They are trying to survive in the face of a life-devastating struggle beyond their control and their life styles totally destroyed. By focusing on Garfield County, Colorado, and the San Juan Basin, the film examines the growing environmental and social costs to an area now referred to as a “National Sacrifice Zone." The film narrates their liberties, their communities, and their health. The film also challenges “the sugarcoating on an industry touted as a clean alternative to fossil fuels, and poignantly drives home the need for real alternatives.”1
How is the argument or narrative made and sustained? How much scientific information is provided, for example? Does the film have emotional appeal?
From the beginning, the film emphasizes how devastating the problem that is occurring at this right moment in many regions in America. The film strongly captures the upsetting situation of daily problems and struggles of people in Colorado. By showing home-videos from Chris and Steve Mobaldi, it clearly shows how Chris’ health problems have grown more severely over time. The film focuses on the health concerns of the people and chemicals, which are used in hydraulic fracturing, and their impacts on human body. Since the oil and gas industry is not obligated and regulated to provide its chemical information, the company provides very limited information. The film also provides some interviews with medical doctors to discuss chemicals and their possible effects on the human body. They commented that it is really hard to diagnose their patients since they do now know what chemicals and environments they were exposed to in their daily lives. In summary, the film tried to provide as much scientific information as possible, but very limited information was delivered and the film was consistently challenged by the industry and “experts” who have conflicting interests in the industry. Including Mobaldi’s home-video and many visual effects, film has strong emotional appeal. In fact, one of the main strategies of the film was strongly tied with audience emotionally through upsetting true-life stories of families who have been affected and suffered physically and mentally from the oil and gas industry.
What sustainability problems does the film draw out?
The film begins with what political events took place to give legal rights to the oil and gas industry to explore natural resources in America. Specifically, a former Vice-President Dick Cheney created the “Halliburton Loophole” as part of the 2005 Energy Bill; it allows companies involved in natural gas drilling are exempt from EPA regulation of portions of the Safe Drinking Water Act. In order to support the domestic economy, the Bush Administration encouraged states to lease out mineral rights to the industry. Technological innovations/advances like hydraulic fracturing allowed companies to maximize their productivity and profits. Despite many media and informational resources that challenge the practice of hydraulic fracturing and its possible impacts on environment, the oil and gas industry continues their operations since they are not obligated to address any issues that people challenge. Culturally, Split Estate took many places in Rocky Mountain West where property (surface) owner’s rights and living conditions were completely destroyed by companies who owned mineral rights of the land. The companies’ behavior is unacceptable because they often refuse to acknowledge the fact that their practice doesn’t affect the environment and health. Chemicals found in produced water, evaporation pit, and even drinking water, clearly show that ecological impact is much larger than what the oil and gas industry admits or shares. Many organizational meetings are taking place at the county and state levels to stop hydraulic fracturing. Also, there are many educational groups who inform people and congress about the problems of fracking.
What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why?
I didn’t know the dark side of the Energy Policy Act 2005. It not only did it give the oil and gas industry to a right explore natural gas in America, but also the industry was exempt from federal protection like the clean water act. I was very upset by how United States presidents say that technological innovation will save the planet and fix the problems when technology actually allows large scale operations and more profits for the corporations. It seems like the oil and gas industry didn’t invest in natural gas in America since it was too expensive in past decades. With the rise in gas prices and optimization of hydraulic fracturing technology, however, the natural gas made the operation affordable. I understand the current unstable economy situation forces the corporations to seek short-term profits, but they must address long-term profits and impact, like property value and individual health. The oil and gas industry must minimize their impacts on both environment and humanity. They must stop only acting like they are “good neighbors” and actually start caring about people of America.
What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by? Why?
Although I understand that Dick Cheney was highly influential and involved with the industry, the representation of how the Bush Administration was so eager to give power to the oil and gas industry seems little exaggerated. There must be some other politicians, key businessmen, and more organizations who were working with the Bush Administration. Instead of setting Dick Cheney as a super-star who did everything by himself, more names and affiliations could be helpful. I think Dick Cheney and Halliburton were obvious dots that even average people could connect. The film could have found some more information to help people understand the full matrix and to connect more dots to draw a bigger picture.
What audiences does the film best address? Why?
The film best appeals l to most people who own property except people who have interests and profits gained from the oil and gas industry. The film did a great job to appeal to a wide range of audiences. Instead of discussing how and why it was so effective to address most people, I would like to question which audience may not care about this problem and why. It is safe to assume that poor people, who do not own the property and are desperate for any kind of job, wouldn’t care much about this film. In fact, these people get hired by the oil and gas companies, work on the wells, and live in the abandoned neighborhoods that have environmental problems. These poor people and rich people, who invested in the industry, want business to grow. All they care about is money for survival or fulfilling their greed. It is hard not to be compelled by this film, but there are always people on the other side who get hurts.
What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental educational value?
Although employees are advised not to comment on his or her employer, interviews with people, who are working for the oil and gas industry and moved into neighborhoods that most native locals abandoned due to environmental problems, would enhance the film’s environmental educational value. These people may know the hazard of their working environment and the possible harms in their residential areas. I feel like these people do not have a choice or voice to speak about their health concerns since they fear to lose their jobs. If the film could provide their perspectives, it would enhance and offer broad view of the environmental issues.
What kinds of action and points of intervention are suggested by the film? If the film itself does not suggest corrective actions, describe actions that you can imagine being effective.
The film ended with a positive side of the story that the governor and senator of Colorado were able to set environmental safeguards to limit drilling operations in state of Colorado, especially in Roan Plateau. Although it showed the conflict in state and federal government, it could start a nationwide movement and protest against the Bureau of Land Management and the oil and gas industry. The film also encouraged people to take action and be more aware of their communities by briefly mentioning what could possibly happen in 32 other states. The film concluded that ultimately Americans will pay the price in this devastating clash of interests. Especially, the drilling in the New York City watershed, which provides drinking water to millions, alarmed the most New York residents. The film made it clear that this problem is not just happening on Rocky Mountain West. Educating the neighborhoods and taking appropriate action is critical.
What additional information has this film compelled you to seek out?
Production of Gasland, the documentary directed by Josh Fox, began in 2008 and released in 2010. Like Split Estate, the film contains very similar information and explores the same issue.
The film offers more interesting facts, like transportation of gas, number of wells, number of chemicals that are used in fracking, and more. He interviewed and collected data from diverse region from Rocky Mountain West to the South, and to the East Coast. The video record of a committee meeting in New York State Congress gave a clear idea about how the oil and gas industries continuously argue that their fluid injection doesn’t affect safety of drinking water. Since the movie did a great job illustrating the problem at a personal level, more audiences could easily be engaged with the problem and concerned about their backyards. For more information please visit http://www.gaslandthemovie.com/. If you would like to know counter arguments and criticism on the film, America’s Natural Gas Alliance has their arguments on following website: http://anga.us/truthaboutgasland?gclid=COKGhfaq6KsCFQXe4Aodo16sKg. Since I am not compelled with their arguments, I will refuse to share their points in my annotation.
STS Film Series: Split Estate
Word Count: 1671
Split Estate was directed by Debra Anderson and released in 2009.
What is the central argument or narrative of the film?
Through an intimate conversation with people in the path of a new drilling boom in the Rocky Mountain West, the film argues that these powerless people, who are not supported by government agency and regulation, are suffering physically and mentally from the oil and gas industry. They are trying to survive in the face of a life-devastating struggle beyond their control and their life styles totally destroyed. By focusing on Garfield County, Colorado, and the San Juan Basin, the film examines the growing environmental and social costs to an area now referred to as a “National Sacrifice Zone." The film narrates their liberties, their communities, and their health. The film also challenges “the sugarcoating on an industry touted as a clean alternative to fossil fuels, and poignantly drives home the need for real alternatives.”1
How is the argument or narrative made and sustained? How much scientific information is provided, for example? Does the film have emotional appeal?
From the beginning, the film emphasizes how devastating the problem that is occurring at this right moment in many regions in America. The film strongly captures the upsetting situation of daily problems and struggles of people in Colorado. By showing home-videos from Chris and Steve Mobaldi, it clearly shows how Chris’ health problems have grown more severely over time. The film focuses on the health concerns of the people and chemicals, which are used in hydraulic fracturing, and their impacts on human body. Since the oil and gas industry is not obligated and regulated to provide its chemical information, the company provides very limited information. The film also provides some interviews with medical doctors to discuss chemicals and their possible effects on the human body. They commented that it is really hard to diagnose their patients since they do now know what chemicals and environments they were exposed to in their daily lives. In summary, the film tried to provide as much scientific information as possible, but very limited information was delivered and the film was consistently challenged by the industry and “experts” who have conflicting interests in the industry. Including Mobaldi’s home-video and many visual effects, film has strong emotional appeal. In fact, one of the main strategies of the film was strongly tied with audience emotionally through upsetting true-life stories of families who have been affected and suffered physically and mentally from the oil and gas industry.
What sustainability problems does the film draw out?
The film begins with what political events took place to give legal rights to the oil and gas industry to explore natural resources in America. Specifically, a former Vice-President Dick Cheney created the “Halliburton Loophole” as part of the 2005 Energy Bill; it allows companies involved in natural gas drilling are exempt from EPA regulation of portions of the Safe Drinking Water Act. In order to support the domestic economy, the Bush Administration encouraged states to lease out mineral rights to the industry. Technological innovations/advances like hydraulic fracturing allowed companies to maximize their productivity and profits. Despite many media and informational resources that challenge the practice of hydraulic fracturing and its possible impacts on environment, the oil and gas industry continues their operations since they are not obligated to address any issues that people challenge. Culturally, Split Estate took many places in Rocky Mountain West where property (surface) owner’s rights and living conditions were completely destroyed by companies who owned mineral rights of the land. The companies’ behavior is unacceptable because they often refuse to acknowledge the fact that their practice doesn’t affect the environment and health. Chemicals found in produced water, evaporation pit, and even drinking water, clearly show that ecological impact is much larger than what the oil and gas industry admits or shares. Many organizational meetings are taking place at the county and state levels to stop hydraulic fracturing. Also, there are many educational groups who inform people and congress about the problems of fracking.
What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why?
I didn’t know the dark side of the Energy Policy Act 2005. It not only did it give the oil and gas industry to a right explore natural gas in America, but also the industry was exempt from federal protection like the clean water act. I was very upset by how United States presidents say that technological innovation will save the planet and fix the problems when technology actually allows large scale operations and more profits for the corporations. It seems like the oil and gas industry didn’t invest in natural gas in America since it was too expensive in past decades. With the rise in gas prices and optimization of hydraulic fracturing technology, however, the natural gas made the operation affordable. I understand the current unstable economy situation forces the corporations to seek short-term profits, but they must address long-term profits and impact, like property value and individual health. The oil and gas industry must minimize their impacts on both environment and humanity. They must stop only acting like they are “good neighbors” and actually start caring about people of America.
What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by? Why?
Although I understand that Dick Cheney was highly influential and involved with the industry, the representation of how the Bush Administration was so eager to give power to the oil and gas industry seems little exaggerated. There must be some other politicians, key businessmen, and more organizations who were working with the Bush Administration. Instead of setting Dick Cheney as a super-star who did everything by himself, more names and affiliations could be helpful. I think Dick Cheney and Halliburton were obvious dots that even average people could connect. The film could have found some more information to help people understand the full matrix and to connect more dots to draw a bigger picture.
What audiences does the film best address? Why?
The film best appeals l to most people who own property except people who have interests and profits gained from the oil and gas industry. The film did a great job to appeal to a wide range of audiences. Instead of discussing how and why it was so effective to address most people, I would like to question which audience may not care about this problem and why. It is safe to assume that poor people, who do not own the property and are desperate for any kind of job, wouldn’t care much about this film. In fact, these people get hired by the oil and gas companies, work on the wells, and live in the abandoned neighborhoods that have environmental problems. These poor people and rich people, who invested in the industry, want business to grow. All they care about is money for survival or fulfilling their greed. It is hard not to be compelled by this film, but there are always people on the other side who get hurts.
What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental educational value?
Although employees are advised not to comment on his or her employer, interviews with people, who are working for the oil and gas industry and moved into neighborhoods that most native locals abandoned due to environmental problems, would enhance the film’s environmental educational value. These people may know the hazard of their working environment and the possible harms in their residential areas. I feel like these people do not have a choice or voice to speak about their health concerns since they fear to lose their jobs. If the film could provide their perspectives, it would enhance and offer broad view of the environmental issues.
What kinds of action and points of intervention are suggested by the film? If the film itself does not suggest corrective actions, describe actions that you can imagine being effective.
The film ended with a positive side of the story that the governor and senator of Colorado were able to set environmental safeguards to limit drilling operations in state of Colorado, especially in Roan Plateau. Although it showed the conflict in state and federal government, it could start a nationwide movement and protest against the Bureau of Land Management and the oil and gas industry. The film also encouraged people to take action and be more aware of their communities by briefly mentioning what could possibly happen in 32 other states. The film concluded that ultimately Americans will pay the price in this devastating clash of interests. Especially, the drilling in the New York City watershed, which provides drinking water to millions, alarmed the most New York residents. The film made it clear that this problem is not just happening on Rocky Mountain West. Educating the neighborhoods and taking appropriate action is critical.
What additional information has this film compelled you to seek out?
Production of Gasland, the documentary directed by Josh Fox, began in 2008 and released in 2010. Like Split Estate, the film contains very similar information and explores the same issue.
The film offers more interesting facts, like transportation of gas, number of wells, number of chemicals that are used in fracking, and more. He interviewed and collected data from diverse region from Rocky Mountain West to the South, and to the East Coast. The video record of a committee meeting in New York State Congress gave a clear idea about how the oil and gas industries continuously argue that their fluid injection doesn’t affect safety of drinking water. Since the movie did a great job illustrating the problem at a personal level, more audiences could easily be engaged with the problem and concerned about their backyards. For more information please visit http://www.gaslandthemovie.com/. If you would like to know counter arguments and criticism on the film, America’s Natural Gas Alliance has their arguments on following website: http://anga.us/truthaboutgasland?gclid=COKGhfaq6KsCFQXe4Aodo16sKg. Since I am not compelled with their arguments, I will refuse to share their points in my annotation.
Reference1. Split Estate. "The Story." 2009. Web. 13 Oct. 2011. www.splitestate.com/the_film.html